Toward multihazard mitigation: An evaluation of FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plans under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000

Oluponmile O. Olonilua, PhD; Olurominiyi Ibitayo, PhD

doi:10.5055/jem.2011.0045

Authors

Oluponmile O. Olonilua, PhD
Olurominiyi Ibitayo, PhD

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.2011.0045

Keywords:

hazard mitigation, emergency management, Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, collaboration, public information and awareness, Federal Emergency Management Agency, evacuation, multiple hazards

Abstract

This article evaluates the extent to which the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-approved plans submitted by local and tribal governments in response to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K) comply with the requirements of the Act.The DMA2K requires state, local, and tribal governments to develop a FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plan to remain eligible for predisaster funding. The specific requirements investigated in this study are collaboration with several identified stakeholders in the planning process and in the mitigation action section of the plans, incorporation of public information and awareness in the mitigation action section, and public participation both in the process of developing the plans and in the mitigation action section of the plans. Other requirements include the incorporation of evacuation and sheltering as elements of multihazard plan, terrorism, technological hazard, and “special needs” population. A total of 202 FEMA-approved hazard mitigation action plans were selected using both stratified and purposive sampling, and the result of the evaluation shows that the extent of compliance by cities and counties in the sampled multijurisdictions with the requirements of DMA2K and FEMA is generally low. For example, more than 70 percent of cities in four of the sampled multijurisdictions did not include evacuation or sheltering in their hazard mitigation action plans.With the exception of provision for special needs population, t-test analyses of all requirements show no significant difference between plans produced by counties and cities. This study provides a policy learning opportunity for policy makers, emergency management officials, and many other stakeholders to make necessary adjustments to the hazard mitigation plans while reviewing and updating approved plans. This is especially true as DMA2K requires that plans must be updated and reviewed after 5 years.

Author Biographies

Oluponmile O. Olonilua, PhD

Masters of Public Administration Program, Barbara Jordan-Mickey Leland School of Public Affairs, Texas Southern University, Houston, Texas.

Olurominiyi Ibitayo, PhD

Urban Planning and Environmental Policy Program, Barbara Jordan-Mickey Leland School of Public Affairs, Texas Southern University, Houston, Texas.

References

Federal Emergency Management Agency: Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. Available at www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/DMA.shtm. Accessed May 6, 2006.

Mileti DS: Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States: Natural Hazards and Disasters. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1999.

LeDuc A, Parker R, Lynn K: Natural hazard mitigation in Oregon: A case study. Beyond September 11th. An account of postdisaster research. Available at www.colorado.edu/hazards/sp/sp39/ sept11book_ch21_leduc.pdf. Accessed February 2, 2006.

Godschalk DR: Disaster mitigation and hazard management. In Drabek TE, Hoetmer GJ (eds.): Emergency Management: Principles and Practice for Local Government.Washington, DC: International City Management Association, 1991: 131-160.

The Associated Press: Rita exposes evacuation problems. Available at www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/25/national/ main883599.shtml. Accessed August 10, 2006.

Gillespie DF: Coordinating community resources. In Drabek TE, Hoetmer GJ (eds.): Emergency Management: Principles and Practice for Local Government.Washington, DC: International City Management Association, 1991: 55-78.

Perry R, Lindell M: Principles for managing community relocation as a hazard mitigation measure. J Contingencies Crisis Manage. 2003; 5(1): 49-59.

Federal Emergency Management Agency: Building partnerships to reduce hazard risks: Tips for community officials, colleges and universities. Available at www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do? id=1682. Accessed June 11, 2005.

Federal Emergency Management Agency: Interim rule 44 CFR parts 201 and 206: Hazard mitigation planning and hazard mitigation grant program. Available at www.fema.gov/pdf/plan/mitplanning/ 67fr8844.pdf. Accessed June 11, 2005.

Perry R, Nelson L: Ethnicity and hazard information dissemination. Environ Manage. 1991; 15(4): 581-587.

Scanlon J: Good News and Bad News: Media Relations and Emergency Management. Seminar Report on Crises and the Media. Easingwold, York: Emergency Planning College, 1991: 63-79.

Driscoll P, Salwen MB: Riding out the storm: Public evaluation of news coverage of Hurricane Andrew. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters. 1996; 14(3): 293-303.

Prater CS, Lindell MK: Politics of hazard mitigation. Nat Hazards Rev. 2000; 1(2): 73-82.

Perry RW, Greene M, Mushkatel A: American Minority Citizens in Disaster. Final Report. Seattle, WA: Battelle Human Affairs Research, 1983.

Kartez J: Crisis response planning: Toward a contingent analysis. J Am Plan Assoc. 1984; 50: 9-21.

Brody SD, Carrasco V, Highfield W: Evaluating ecosystem management capabilities at the local level in Florida: Identifying policy gaps using geographic information systems. Environ Manage. 2003; 32(6): 661-681.

Godschalk DR: Urban hazard mitigation: Creating resilient cities. Plenary Paper Presented at the Urban Hazards Forum, John Jay College, City University, New York, January 22-24, 2002.

Cottrell A, Cunliffe S, King D, et al.: Awareness and preparedness for natural hazards in a remote community: Bloomfield River Region and Rossville. Centre for Disaster Studies, School of Tropical Environment Studies and Geography, James Cook University, Queensland, Australia, 2001.

Nathe S, Gori P, Greene M, et al.: Public education for earthquake hazards. Nat Hazards Informer. 1999; 2: 1-11.

Mileti D, O’Brien P: Warning during disasters: Normalizing communication risk. Soc Probl. 1992; 39(1): 40-46.

Durham T, Suiter LE: Perspectives and roles of the state and federal governments. In Drabek TE, Hoetmer GJ (eds.): Emergency Management: Principles and Practice for Local Government. Washington, DC: International City Management Association, 1991: 101-130.

Sorensen JH,Vogt BN, Mileti DS: Evacuation: An Assessment of Planning and Research. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1987.

Federal Emergency Management Agency: Hazardous materials. Available at www.fema.gov/hazard/hazmat/index.shtm. Accessed May 6, 2006.

Kasperson RE, Pijawka KD: Societal response to hazards and major hazard events: Comparing natural and technological hazards. Public Admin Rev. 1985; January (Special Issue): 7-17.

Ibitayo OO, Mushkatel A, Pijawka KD: Social and political amplification of technological hazards: The case of the PEPCON explosion. J Hazard Mater. 2004; 114(1-3): 15-25.

Moysich KB, Menezes RJ, Michalek AM: Chernobyl-related ionizing radiation exposure and cancer risk; an epidemiological review. Lancet Oncol. 2002; 3(5): 269-279.

Federal Emergency Management Agency: How-to-guide #3: Developing the mitigation plan: Identifying mitigation actions and implementation strategy. Available at www.fema.gov/plan/ mitplanning/howto3.shtm. Accessed May 6, 2006.

Quarantelli EL: The warning process and evacuation behavior: The research evidence, Preliminary Paper #148. Disaster Research Center. Available at http://dspace.udel.edu:8080/dspace/ bitstream/19716/520/3/PP148.pdf. Accessed September 2, 2006.

Morrow B: Identifying and mapping community vulnerability. Disasters. 1999; 23(1): 1-18.